Opinions/Discussions on Guns

C

Cackalacky

Guest
Just wow.......
8126de51_not-sure-if-serious-or-just-missed-the-point.png


the irony being your overeaction....
 
FLDomer

FLDomer

Polish Hammer
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
510
Cackalacky said:
Interesting....duly noted, I will dumb it down and misspell somethings next time. (for the record... its a meme and a .jpg. Not a .gif)
Click to expand...

Alright guys lets limit the arguing in this thread to guns and firearm related stuff...jeeeez!
 
phgreek

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Cackalacky said:
Three Marines Killed In Shooting At Base In Virginia : The Two-Way : NPR
Click to expand...

Tragic...although reading the comments attached to this story is nearly as tragic.

Being that this link is inserted in a gun debate thread...i presume there is some point or argument being supported.

my takeaway..Going to assume PTSD is the issue, and the shooter is a vet. of combat. Sollution? Well since DC is a giant object lesson in idiots with overly reflexive knees...I'll start with consequences of policy I would not accept. I do not want to victimize soldiers who've processed being at war and gotten through it by taking away their guns because .01% (number for effect..not quoting anything) of them go bonkers. Clearly far more have handled their life after war w/o hurting anyone...I presume many of them gun owners.

So reality is education of those coming off a tour, education of everyone around soldiers returning, and availability of resources to help soldiers returning from combat are the tools we can use without doing a DC, and creating far more unintended consequences than intended benfits. The best tools are vigilence by those around returning soldiers, and a culture that promotes understanding mental fatigue-PTSD like a broken bone...can't be a soldier w/ a broken leg...can't be a soldier with a broken head.

BTW...almost afraid to ask...What the hell is a Two-way...
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
phgreek said:
Tragic...although reading the comments attached to this story is nearly as tragic.

Being that this link is inserted in a gun debate thread...i presume there is some point or argument being supported.

my takeaway..Going to assume PTSD is the issue, and the shooter is a vet. of combat. Sollution? Well since DC is a giant object lesson in idiots with overly reflexive knees...I'll start with consequences of policy I would not accept. I do not want to victimize soldiers who've processed being at war and gotten through it by taking away their guns because .01% (number for effect..not quoting anything) of them go bonkers. Clearly far more have handled their life after war w/o hurting anyone...I presume many of them gun owners.

So reality is education of those coming off a tour, education of everyone around soldiers returning, and availability of resources to help soldiers returning from combat are the tools we can use without doing a DC, and creating far more unintended consequences than intended benfits. The best tools are vigilence by those around returning soldiers, and a culture that promotes understanding mental fatigue-PTSD like a broken bone...can't be a soldier w/ a broken leg...can't be a soldier with a broken head.

BTW...almost afraid to ask...What the hell is a Two-way...
Click to expand...

I had no intention of starting or supporting one thing over another. I saw it this morning and posted it. You may not be aware but I have no love of guns for numerous personal reasons, but I am not opposed to gun ownership and see their value in most instances, though I think reasonable restriction is necessary and I did not say anything about taking away guns from the military personnel (why have a military?). When I posted the link, it was merely a very short article on what is now probably more widely reported on. I know a guy with PTSD and it is a tough go for him. Its not as bad as others have it but I have seen him struggle.

NPR's Two-way is the blog for news that is " too important" not to talk about. Probably could use a different name LOL.
 
Last edited:
JadeBrecks

JadeBrecks

MOΛΩN ΛABE
Messages
4,982
Reaction score
371
DSully1995 said:
Since john lennons death 1000000 people have died from firearms
Click to expand...

That is over 20 years? I don't think that is a bad number.

That is 8 years worth of deaths where alcohol was the explicit cause of death.

From 1980-1988 (8 years) there were at least 1,108,000 deaths were diabetes was listed as the underlying cause of death.

The amount of smoking related deaths from 2000-2004 (4 years) were 1,772,000.

Yet we don't have a opinions/discussions on (sugary food and drinks, alcohol, or smoking let alone vehicles). Nobody is screaming for people to take this stuff away all day every day. Yet when 3-5 people out of 312.8 million people a year go in and preform a mass shooting everyone must call for gun control and the removal of guns smaller magazines etc, etc. All the while they fail to look at the fact that the person already broke several laws to do so. They weren't legally allowed to own the firearms, take them were they did, or murder people with them. They think that adding one more law will make it all go away when it is the laws that hurt the victims from legally protecting themselves from these threats.

One last question. If someone commits murder in your state they are either looking at the death penalty (if your state allows it) or life in prison if the don't commit suicide. If you add another 5, 10, 20 or even life sentence to that what will it change for them?
 
BobD

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
JadeBrecks said:
That is over 20 years? I don't think that is a bad number.

That is 8 years worth of deaths where alcohol was the explicit cause of death.

From 1980-1988 (8 years) there were at least 1,108,000 deaths were diabetes was listed as the underlying cause of death.

The amount of smoking related deaths from 2000-2004 (4 years) were 1,772,000.

Yet we don't have a opinions/discussions on (sugary food and drinks, alcohol, or smoking let alone vehicles). Nobody is screaming for people to take this stuff away all day every day. Yet when 3-5 people out of 312.8 million people a year go in and preform a mass shooting everyone must call for gun control and the removal of guns smaller magazines etc, etc. All the while they fail to look at the fact that the person already broke several laws to do so. They weren't legally allowed to own the firearms, take them were they did, or murder people with them. They think that adding one more law will make it all go away when it is the laws that hurt the victims from legally protecting themselves from these threats.

One last question. If someone commits murder in your state they are either looking at the death penalty (if your state allows it) or life in prison if the don't commit suicide. If you add another 5, 10, 20 or even life sentence to that what will it change for them?
Click to expand...

My friend, One death for any preventable reason, is one too many.
 
JadeBrecks

JadeBrecks

MOΛΩN ΛABE
Messages
4,982
Reaction score
371
BobD said:
My friend, One death for any preventable reason, is one too many.
Click to expand...

So you are for us living individually in a stationary bubble? You can't remove all danger from life. The best thing you can do is inform them and let them make their own decisions not force feed them bull crap that you think will keep them safer.

As far as a preventable reason would you be for the removal of "gun free" zones? If only one person was carrying in these mass shootings a life could be spared.

You also didn't answer the question.
 
BobD

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
While the United States was carrying out major combat operations in two separate countries our death toll due to guns was higher back here at home.
 
B

brandonnash

New member
Messages
214
Reaction score
9
BobD said:
I once said "that's the dumbest, most idiotic statement I've ever read" Then along come these two geniuses.
Click to expand...

So I guess you enjoyed his Marxist views and maybe even wanted to be a resident of "nutopia"? The Beatles, collectively, had some good music. Lennon was a waste of a human. Too stoned for rational thought or conversation, seemingly always in the middle of some uproar or conspiracy. It was all too much.

Ask yourself this, if he were a member of a less popular band, say maybe a backup singer/dancer for vanilla ice, would you stand by your statement? Could anyone else have filled in his spot? I believe someone could have.
 
FLDomer

FLDomer

Polish Hammer
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
510
BobD said:
While the United States was carrying out major combat operations in two separate countries our death toll due to guns was higher back here at home.
Click to expand...

Probably because the good guys where armed and their guns probably saved their buddies and their own lives.
 
JadeBrecks

JadeBrecks

MOΛΩN ΛABE
Messages
4,982
Reaction score
371
BobD said:
While the United States was carrying out major combat operations in two separate countries our death toll due to guns was higher back here at home.
Click to expand...

That would make sense. Most service men I have met are upstanding people. They aren't your standard criminal. So you take away the law abiding citizens to defend the country and leave the criminals at home. You have removed a number of people who would be carrying who could potentially break up a crime. You remove the husband from the house making a home invasion more enticing to a robber, rapist, or murderer or even for that matter outside the home too. Also I would assume they include the soldiers who they drop back into society with PTSD and no help.

If you won't answer my questions can I at least ask why you don't want to answer my question?
 
BobD

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
JadeBrecks said:
That is over 20 years? I don't think that is a bad number.

That is 8 years worth of deaths where alcohol was the explicit cause of death.

From 1980-1988 (8 years) there were at least 1,108,000 deaths were diabetes was listed as the underlying cause of death.

The amount of smoking related deaths from 2000-2004 (4 years) were 1,772,000.

Yet we don't have a opinions/discussions on (sugary food and drinks, alcohol, or smoking let alone vehicles). Nobody is screaming for people to take this stuff away all day every day. Yet when 3-5 people out of 312.8 million people a year go in and preform a mass shooting everyone must call for gun control and the removal of guns smaller magazines etc, etc. All the while they fail to look at the fact that the person already broke several laws to do so. They weren't legally allowed to own the firearms, take them were they did, or murder people with them. They think that adding one more law will make it all go away when it is the laws that hurt the victims from legally protecting themselves from these threats.

One last question. If someone commits murder in your state they are either looking at the death penalty (if your state allows it) or life in prison if the don't commit suicide. If you add another 5, 10, 20 or even life sentence to that what will it change for them?
Click to expand...

What does that one last question have to do with anything?

You always try to use the "minimizing" argument by attempting to highlight other deadly things instead of talking about guns. If everybody looked at things that way, we'd have to give up the fight against al-Qaeda and declare war on ourselves. We kill each other more than any terrorist organization does.
 
JadeBrecks

JadeBrecks

MOΛΩN ΛABE
Messages
4,982
Reaction score
371
BobD said:
What does that one last question have to do with anything?

You always try to use the "minimizing" argument by attempting to highlight other deadly things instead of talking about guns. If everybody looked at things that way, we'd have to give up the fight against al-Qaeda and declare war on ourselves. We kill each other more than any terrorist organization does.
Click to expand...

The last question has to do with the new legislation you want to impose. I am asking what is it going to deter in these mass shootings if you are already willing to commit murder? You want more laws more laws more laws to stop people already will to break laws with penalties that include life in prison or the death penalty. What difference will a let say 5 year prison sentence for having a 30 round magazine or "assault weapon" do to deter the people you are trying to stop?

The second question
"As far as a preventable reason would you be for the removal of "gun free" zones? If only one person was carrying in these mass shootings a life could be spared."

This one is related to the fact that you are all for "saving one life" with these laws unless it has to do with removing your gun control laws that aren't working in the first place.

I show you all the other things that are causing more deaths for a couple reasons. It seems people like to throw out guns cause "x" deaths to push for gun control. Yet when you show someone arguing this fact with those numbers coupled with the "saving one life" mentality Im showing you this idea would lead you on a never ending crusade that would only finish in everyone in an individual bubble. Life has dangers. You can't remove them all.
Another reason this is one of the few topics you will debate on. I have brought up every angle I can think of to debate this topic. I have used the constitution, good they due verses bad, the amount of bad they do verses population, and many more. I specifically answered every question asked of me before. I answered question that weren't asked of me. But when I asked for an answer to my questions before nobody touched. Them. They sat back and waited for someone to bring up another subject and started talking about that one. I thought this was a discussion not a one way defense. This is the reason I let this thread last time. I tried real hard to work and discuss this topic with people. I used my arguments and I am ignored when someone can't come up with a response. Then when I use the approach or the person debating I am told that is a terrible way to debate that topic. I can't win no matter what why I present it to you. You don't debate me on what I bring to you you debate on the way I bring it.

I keep telling myself I won't renter here and for some reason I do. Im sorry for coming back and I will try to stay out of here for as long as I can again. Nothing I said was meant to be personal so please don't take it that way. Adios
 
GoIrish41

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
JadeBrecks said:
That would make sense. Most service men I have met are upstanding people. They aren't your standard criminal. So you take away the law abiding citizens to defend the country and leave the criminals at home. You have removed a number of people who would be carrying who could potentially break up a crime. You remove the husband from the house making a home invasion more enticing to a robber, rapist, or murderer or even for that matter outside the home too. Also I would assume they include the soldiers who they drop back into society with PTSD and no help.

If you won't answer my questions can I at least ask why you don't want to answer my question?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with a lot you say about guns but you typically make logical arguments to defend your positions. This is not a logical argument and a guy with your intellect cannot possibly believe any of what you said here explains why the number of murders was higher than the death count in the wars.
 
GoIrish41

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
brandonnash said:
So I guess you enjoyed his Marxist views and maybe even wanted to be a resident of "nutopia"? The Beatles, collectively, had some good music. Lennon was a waste of a human. Too stoned for rational thought or conversation, seemingly always in the middle of some uproar or conspiracy. It was all too much.

Ask yourself this, if he were a member of a less popular band, say maybe a backup singer/dancer for vanilla ice, would you stand by your statement? Could anyone else have filled in his spot? I believe someone could have.
Click to expand...

If you are going to talk about Lennon's political views, you cannot do so acurately without talking about his fervor for pursuing peace in the world. His organized political affilitations were with Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies who protested against the war in Vietnam.

Lennon was an artist, and his conceptional nation of "Nutopia" was a device for him to speak of his view of a utopian world, not unlike the lyrics to the song Imagine, which may well be the most recongnized song by people throughout the world. It really doesn't matter what anyone would think if he were a member of a less popular band because he wasn't. The Beatles are arguable the best and most accomplished bands in history and much of the credit for that success can be attributed to John Lennon. He used his significant celebrity status to focus attention on causes he believed in. The height of his popularity came in, perhaps, the most volitile point in America's social and political history and he was an important player in much of that history. So that you suggest he was "always in the middle of some uproar or conspiracy" is testiment to his effectiveness.

To many, attacking John Lennon is akin to attacking Ghandi or Mother Teresa. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you should know that there are people of all walks of life and across multiple generations that would find your statements offensive. I would think that a person who was a waste of human life wouldn't have been worth your time in talking about ... or reading a post this long about.
 
Last edited:
DSully1995

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.


Two ways to look at this fact, since Canada does have lower cime rates, what you guys think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top